August  i,  1892.]  THE  TROPICAL  AGRICULTURIST. 
121 
COOLY  CONTRACTS  IN  SOUTHERN  INDIA. 
The  article  we  extract  from  the  Madras  Mail 
(on  page  119)  indicates  the  general  scope  of  a petition 
addressed  to  the  Viceroy  of  India  on  the  subject  of 
difficulties  connected  with  contracts  for  eooly  labour 
in  the  Madras  Presidency  and  the  Native  States  of 
Mysore,  Travancore,  Cochin,  &c. , connected  with 
it.  The  representation  ought  to  carry  much  weight, 
for  it  is  signed  by  representatives  of  planting 
communities  scattered  over  Southern  India  as 
follows : — 
John  F.  Jowitt, 
Ag.  Hony.  Secy.,  S.  Wynaad  Planters’  Association. 
A.  Lambert, 
Honorary  Secretary,  Coorg  Planters'  Association. 
L.  D.  Collebge, 
Hony.  Secy.,  North  Mysore  Planters’  Association. 
Brooke  Mockett, 
President,  South  Mysore  Planters’  Association. 
Henry  M.  Knight, 
Hony.  Secy.,  South  Mysore  Planters’  Association. 
J.  S.  Valentine, 
Hony.  Secy.,  Travancore  Planters’  Association. 
W.  S.  Lechler, 
Hony.  Secy.,  Shevaroy  Planters’  Association. 
F.  Griffith, 
Hony.  Secy.,  Kotagherry  Planters’  Association. 
We  have  no  more  doubt  now  than  we  previously 
entertained,  and  that  was  none,  that  the  main 
rsason  for  labour  difficulties  amongst  the  planters  of 
Southern  India,  incongruous  as  it  may  seem,  is  the 
nearness  of  their  estates  to  the  home  and  fields  of 
the  labourers.  The  temptations  to  desert  and  attend 
to  their  ancestral  rice  or  other  culture,  instead  of 
the  interests  of  their  employers  from  whom  they 
have  reoeivtd  advances,  are  strong  in  proportion 
to  the  degree  of  contiguity;  and  even  honest 
contractors,  if  such  beings  exist,  suffer  equally 
in  loss  of  advances,  if  they  make  them,  a3 
the  estate  owners  who  primarily  advance  the 
money,  with  the  hope  of  being  supplied  with  an 
adequate  labour  force.  Warrants,  whether  issued 
against  fraudulent  contractors  or  cooly  deserters, 
seem  to  result  in  no  good  if  issued  in  British 
territory,  and  cannot  run  in  some  of  the  feudatory 
States,  whose  processes  are  executed  in  British 
territory,  while  in  regard  to  Mysore  the  reverse 
is  the  case.  The  intention  of  the  existing  law 
was  that  breaches  of  contract  by  recruiters  and 
coolies  should  be  treated  criminally,  but  the  in- 
tention of  the  law  is  either  not  carried  out  by  the 
Police  and  the  Courts,  or  the  law  is  so  inelastic 
that  defaulting  ooolies  are  not  allowed  to  work 
off  advanoes  but  compelled  to  pay  them  or  suffer 
imprisonment, — that  is  in  the  rare  cases  in  which 
coolies  deserting  while  under  advances  are  cap- 
tured.— whioh  is  rendered  the  more  difficult  by 
the  differing  British  and  Native  States  jurisdictions. 
The  petition  is  too  long  for  us  to  give  in  extenso, 
in  addition  to  the  summary  and  remarks  in  the 
Mail  e iitorial,  but  there  are  some  special  passages 
which  we  must  quote.  For  instance  : — 
It  has  been  urged  by  the  few  Magistrates  who 
were  opposed  to  frereh  legislation  on  this  subject 
that  the  root  of  the  evil  lay  in  our  system  of 
advances.  But  we  assert  that  our  advances  have 
done  more  than  anything  else  to  break  down  the 
village  slaverv  that  used  to  exist  in  our  neighbour- 
hood and  that,  but  for  our  advances  coolies  would 
never  have  been  allowed  to  leave  their  homes  and 
earn  a higher  wage. 
During  the  discussions  which  have  taken  place 
between  the  Associations  joining  in  this  petition,  it 
has  been  brought  to  our  notice  that  the  Act  cannot 
be  put  in  force  in  the  following  cases,  {a.)  Planters 
or  contractors  residing  in  Mysore,  cannot  obtain 
warrants  against  defaulters  in  British  territory, 
though  planters  in  British  territory  can  obtain  war- 
rants against  defaulters  in  Mysore.  ( b .)  Warrants 
cannot  be  obtained  against  defaulters  in  Cochin  I 
16 
territory ; half  the  European  coffee  estates  on  the 
Nellampatty  Hills  are  in  British  and  half  in  Cochin 
territory.  In  this  case,  a Tamil  coolie  from  Coim- 
batore District  frequently  takes  an  advance  to  work 
in  Wynaad  and  then  takes  another  to  go  to  the 
Nellampatty  Hills  ; on  the  arrival  of  a warrant,  he 
merely  has  to  cross  the  boundary  and  arrange  to 
work  on  the  next  estate  to  escape  arrest. 
It  seems  to  be  unfair  to  the  jilanter  that  a cooly 
absenting  himself  without  leave  during  the  period  of 
his  contract  can  practically  deduct  the  time  of  his 
absence  from  the  time  lie  has  to  serve.  It  also  seems 
to  be  unfair  to  the  cooly  that  if  on  arrest  after  the 
expiry  of  the  term  of  his  contract  he  is  willing  to  work 
and  the  planter  to  accept  his  service,  the  Court 
cannot  pass  an  order  to  that  effect.  The  Court  at 
present  can  only  order  him  to  repay  the  advance  and 
imprison  him  if  he  refuses  or  is  unable.  The  planter 
can  only  save  him  from  this  by  withdrawing  his  com- 
plaint, but  if  he  does  so,  he  loses  all  hold  on  the 
cooly  if  he  again  absconds. 
A clause  is  wanted  to  provide  that  the  defaulting 
maistry  should  be  treated  on  exactly  the  same  footing 
as  a defaulting  bankrupt  is  treated  in  the  insolvent 
courts. 
The  Collector  of  Malabar,  in  treating  of  this  subject 
in  1884,  wrote  to  the  Chief  Secretary  as  follows  : — 
“The  maxim  nemo  debit  per  se-ipsum  aecusare  has 
been  imported  into  the  Criminal  law  of  India  as  of 
England.  In  India  some  relaxation  of  the  strict  in- 
terpretation put  on  it  in  England  has  been  per- 
mitted ; but  such  relaxations  still  fall  far  short  of 
such  an  interpretation  of  it  as  would  be  required  to 
meet  the  planters’  wishes  in  respect  of  defaulting 
maistries.” 
“Stated  broadly  their  argument  is. — We  advance 
our  money  to  a man  to  be  invested  in  a particular 
way,  the  man  disappears  and  when  he  is  brought  lip 
on  a warrant  he  is  unable  to  produce  the  money,  and 
gives  a most  unsatisfactory  account  of  what  he  has 
done  with  it.  Is  it  not  fair  to  presume  that  he  has 
misappropriated  it  ? And  yet,  we  are  asked  to  prove 
how  he  spent  it.” 
“ The  hitch  lies  in  the  criminal  law  interpretation 
of  the  maxim  above  quoted.  The  defaulter  gives  a 
plausible  account  of  how  he  lost  the  money  or  was 
robbed  of  it  or  advanced  it  to  coolies  who  immediately 
absconded  or  so  forth,  his  statement  being  frequently 
a compound  of  what  is  false  and  what  is  true.  The 
planter  has  nothing  further  to  advance  than  that  the 
money  was  paid  for  a certain  purpose  and  that  the 
purpose  was  not  carried  out,  that  here  is  the  man 
and  that  he  cannot  produce  the  money.  Of  course 
the  Magistrate  asks  if  there  is  any  evidence  for  the 
prosecution  to  prove  either  the  misappropriation  or 
the  falseness  of  the  prisoner’s  plausible  tale  ; and  of 
course  as  the  scene  of  the  misappropriation  or  of  the 
real  loss  or  of  both,  is  laid  some  200  miles  off  and  in 
foreign  territory,  no  evidence  for  the  prosecution  is 
forthcoming ; the  prisoner  gets  the  benefit  of  the 
doubt  and  walks  out  of  court  free.” 
“All  that  the  planter  really  wants  is  to  be  satis- 
fied how  his  money  went.  The  best  and  most  suc- 
cessful planters  are  those  who  do  not  exact  their 
pound  of  flesh,  who  best  read  the  native  character 
and  see  that,  above  all . things,  a native  is  almost  by 
virtue  of  necessity  loyal  to  his  superiors  and  who 
therefore  readily  forgive  a fault,  being  assured  that 
it  will  be  made  up  by  increased  diligence  in  the 
future.  If  the  man  has  really  and  truly  lost  the 
money  as  he  alleges,  he  is  easily  forgiven,  the  matter 
is  amicably  arranged.  On  the  other  hand  if  the 
money  has  been  misappropriated,  it  is  perfectly  just 
that,  the  defaulter  should  be  sent  to  jail  just  like  his 
brother  the  defaulting  bankrupt.  They  have  both  made 
away  with  other  people’s  money,  and  cannot  satis- 
factorily say  what  has  been  done  with  it.” 
“ What  I would  therefore  propose  is  that  in  the 
case  of  defaulting  maistries  the  burden  of  proving 
that  the  money  was  really  lost  or  was  properly  spent 
should  lie  on  the  maistry  and  that  on  failure  to  prove 
this,  the  maistry  should  be  liable  to  imprisonment 
extending  to  three  months ; and  that  his  contract 
should  still  be  enforceable  under  the  other  provisinso 
of  the  proposed  Act.” 
